|
Alhazred posted:At one point her girth became bigger than her height. 
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Pookah posted:I did not realise just how petite Queen Victoria was: Yikes. Inbreeding is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
The hobbit queen
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Apparently she was considered small even for the period and by the rest of her family - like, they fretted over her nutrition when she was a girl because of it, and she herself complained that everyone grew up except her. Also the dress there was when she was an old lady and had shrunk a bit, down to about 4 ft 8 from her youthful height of around 5 foot. Part of the article about the dress described the process of building up a dummy for it to stand on and fitting said dummy with appropriate underclothes, and all I could think was that she would have been so furious. Pookah has a new favorite as of 18:30 on Sep 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Pookah posted:I did not realise just how petite Queen Victoria was: Historically accurate representation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m-8l3V38Ps
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Pookah posted:all I could think was that she would have been so furious. Or in other words she would not have been amused?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Pookah posted:Apparently she was considered small even for the period and by the rest of her family - like, they fretted over her nutrition when she was a girl because of it, and she herself complained that everyone grew up except her. I think "fretting" is a huge understatement. The so called Kensington System that Victoria had to abide was completely stifling: She could never be alone and had to sleep in her mother's room. She could not walk down a stair without holding someone's hand. She could not under any circumstances dance the waltz. Her daily activities and behavior was recorded in pen and ink. Tellingly the first thing Victoria did on her 18th birthday was to burn the Kensington System to the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:I think "fretting" is a huge understatement. The so called Kensington System that Victoria had to abide was completely stifling: Ok, I did not know her childhood was that abusive, holy poo poo. also Azhais posted:Or in other words she would not have been amused? 
Pookah has a new favorite as of 18:57 on Sep 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Pookah posted:Ok, I did not know her childhood was that abusive, holy poo poo. Its basically the same poo poo with the Japanese royal family even today. The royalty following their own weird system of acceptable behavior and generation-spanning customs which become the mandated laws for them is sort of funny. At some point the court runs the royalty, not the other way around. Unless you have enough support to do scandalous poo poo like "shaking hands with the commoners" or "not wearing white tie after 6 PM".
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Pookah posted:Apparently she was considered small even for the period and by the rest of her family - like, they fretted over her nutrition when she was a girl because of it, and she herself complained that everyone grew up except her. Also the dress there was when she was an old lady and had shrunk a bit, down to about 4 ft 8 from her youthful height of around 5 foot. For reference: People were short as hell in the olden tymes. I know Victoria was a bit later than this, but some time ago I went through the conscription rolls for my hometown, and in 1802 the average height of adult males was 62.45 zealandic inches; these are slightly longer than imperial inches, being 1/24th of zealandic alen (62.81 cm), which is 2.62 cm, whereas 1 imperial inch is 2.54 cm. So: Adult males in my hometown were in 1802 on average 1.63 m or ~5'4.5" imperial. You can really tell when you walk through doorways in old houses Carthag Tuek has a new favorite as of 19:35 on Sep 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:I went through the conscription rolls for my hometown, and in 1802 the average height of adult males was 62.45 zealandic inches; this is slightly longer than imperial inches at 1/24th of zealandic alen = 62.81cm, which is 2.62 cm, whereas 1 imperial inch is 2.54 cm. 19th century museum ships and their crew quarters are almost like some sort of weird doll houses. I am well over 1.8m and sometimes I find myself to be one of the shortest dudes in the room. It feels claustrophobic in a room which was meant to house people in average 20 cm shorter than me and build to save space to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
King Edward I was known as Longshanks because of his unusually intimidating height of...6'2. I'm the same height. I once went into a 17th century peasant house and found that I was taller than the ceiling beams so I had to duck as I crossed the room.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
I'm 6'5" so yea I've bumped my head a bunch of times. I have to duck under some of the doorways in my parents house (built 1923 iirc). I have a great great great grandfather who was known as "Big Lars" (1832–1904). Photos show him as being of normal weight so I've always assumed it was his height . I've been trying for years to find out how "big" he actually was but they apparently stopped writing heights in the consciption rolls right around the time he came of age 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:I have a great great great grandfather who was known as "Big Lars" (1832–1904). Photos show him as being of normal weight so I've always assumed it was his height . I've been trying for years to find out how "big" he actually was but they apparently stopped writing heights in the consciption rolls right around the time he came of age It wasn't for his height. Wink.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:It wasn't for his height. Wink. Dr. Harris posted:That man has the largest penis I have ever seen. I actually don't even know how tall he is; forgot to measure it. I was distracted by the largest penis I have ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Unless it was an ironic name, like a 6'8 guy named Tiny
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:It wasn't for his height. Wink. lol I have this photo that would be an excellent guide for his height (standing near the window), except that house burned down in the 1950s (no lie because american tourists tried to barbeque under the thatched roof): 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
His son (my gg-grandpa) was fairly tall (not the same house unfortunately):
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:His son (my gg-grandpa) was fairly tall (not the same house unfortunately): Your knob has an origin story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:At one point her girth became bigger than her height. "Easier to jump over than walk around" is one verbose way of describing fat people in ex-Yugo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:For reference: People were short as hell in the olden tymes. I know Victoria was a bit later than this, but some time ago I went through the conscription rolls for my hometown, and in 1802 the average height of adult males was 62.45 zealandic inches; these are slightly longer than imperial inches, being 1/24th of zealandic alen (62.81 cm), which is 2.62 cm, whereas 1 imperial inch is 2.54 cm. This is true but it's sometimes overstated, especially with beds or suits of armor. European beds of a certain era were shorter because they slept weird in them, sort of half-sitting up and not fully reclined. Some suits of armor you see in museums that are small were made for noble kids or teens as training wheels. They're in good shape because they weren't ever used in combat. Turns out a lot of armor used by knights are made for big, athletically built dudes that wouldn't look out of place on a modern football pitch. Height has some environmental factors, especially childhood nutrition and disease exposure. Columbus noted that the Taino he encountered on the Antilles were all really tall and healthy looking. Plains Indians were also real tall, due to a plentiful and diverse diet. Definitely not the case if you're a subsistence farmer who had a few lean winters during your formative years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Yeah true, it's important to look into the source if there are any biases or unstated assumptions. A lot of them were defintely malnourished, but this was literally every adult male in the town being measured by representatives of the state at a time when measuring things had been important to the govt for centuries. Although the metrical system was not invented yet, the govt was very much into precise measurements. I've seen fines levied on millers for hollowing out the bushel they used to take their fee from farmers, and complaints about yardsticks being moved an inch around farmland. But also tbf, another ancestor is called "short" when he's enrolled at 18 in 1774, but in the 1802 rolls he is 64.5 zealand inches (1.69 cm) so who knows Decrepus posted:Your knob has an origin story. please dont think about my great*n grandpas knob
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Height has some environmental factors, especially childhood nutrition and disease exposure. Columbus noted that the Taino he encountered on the Antilles were all really tall and healthy looking. Plains Indians were also real tall, due to a plentiful and diverse diet. Definitely not the case if you're a subsistence farmer who had a few lean winters during your formative years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I remember reading that the Japanese army's officer training just prior to WWII was so brutal that the officer candidates who came out of it had their growth objectively stunted. Now they were certainly tough, but they were also like two, three inches shorter than the average conscript. The modern day North Korean guards at the DMZ are also noticeably smaller than their South Korean counterparts and that split is less than 80 years ago. And probably both countries send their best, most imposing dudes to that job. So it definitely is nutrition and harshness issue. Also, American/European dudes tend to impose both of them, so there are also some genetics involved, possibly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah for sure the height average difference between North & South Koreans is purely nutrition. They even both get their tall dudes to stand at the DMZ, plus the Americans put one of their tall guys too just to annoy off NK. e: iirc you'd be eligible for the royal guard if you were 65+ z. inches (~170 cm)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:The modern day North Korean guards at the DMZ are also noticeably smaller than their South Korean counterparts and that split is less than 80 years ago. And probably both countries send their best, most imposing dudes to that job. So it definitely is nutrition and harshness issue. Genetics are absolutely a factor too. Korea is a good example because all the old women you see walking around South Korea look TINY. Probably has something to do with being a kid during periods of war and extreme famine. Here's a good source of data about human height over time https://ourworldindata.org/human-height
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:The modern day North Korean guards at the DMZ are also noticeably smaller than their South Korean counterparts and that split is less than 80 years ago. And probably both countries send their best, most imposing dudes to that job. So it definitely is nutrition and harshness issue.  but my understanding is that your potential height is rooted in your genetics and that some population regions, like west Africa and north Europe, have a notably high potential max height. (It's probably more like "the composite of various factors affecting how long your legs are, how long your spine is, and so on.") Most people realize a certain percentage of that potential while growing up, and nowadays, especially in the West, we have relatively few epidemics and relatively abundant food, so people are realizing more of that potential.So yeah the NK/ROK guard comparison probably shows the difference in that background very clearly. I imagine the divergence was a lot less clear in, say, the 80s or early 90s, where the troops would have grown up in less divergent economic circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Height has inheritable epigenetic factors as well. When you go through a famine, your kids and grandkids will be shorter even if they've had good nutrition since birth. So it's not necessarily genetically hardwired, it's that most people in the various eras we're talking about probably weren't more than two generations away from a serious famine. That's probably why average height here in the UK is still going up, although my parents had good nutrition all their lives we're still only a few generations down the line from war rationing, and before that from lovely 19th century factory workers or whatever
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:But also tbf, another ancestor is called "short" when he's enrolled at 18 in 1774, but in the 1802 rolls he is 64.5 zealand inches (1.69 cm) so who knows I’d say that’s pretty short!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
The late Sudanese American basketball player Manute Bol was 7'7". He says his great grandfather was 7'10"  quote:Bol came from a family of extraordinarily tall men and women. "My mother was 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m), my father 6 ft 8 in (2.03 m), and my sister is 6 ft 8 in (2.03 m)", he said. "And my great-grandfather was even taller—7 ft 10 in (2.39 m)." His ethnic group, the Dinka, and the Nilotic people of which they are a part, are among the tallest populations in the world. Bol's hometown, Turalei, is the origin of other exceptionally tall people, including 7 ft 4 in (2.24 m) basketball player Ring Ayuel   At one point, he was the tallest NBA player ever, but another has since edged him out by 1/4 inch. He is however, the only known NBA player who has killed a lion with a spear, and will probably hold that record forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I’d say that’s pretty short! but compared to the 62.5 inch average it wasnt Magnus Manfist posted:Height has inheritable epigenetic factors as well. When you go through a famine, your kids and grandkids will be shorter even if they've had good nutrition since birth. So it's not necessarily genetically hardwired, it's that most people in the various eras we're talking about probably weren't more than two generations away from a serious famine. That's probably why average height here in the UK is still going up, although my parents had good nutrition all their lives we're still only a few generations down the line from war rationing, and before that from lovely 19th century factory workers or whatever interesting! im pretty sure the average has consistently gone up here since at least 1900 (and probably earlier). but i mean at some point there's got to be a limit, but we aint seeing it yet Carthag Tuek has a new favorite as of 22:16 on Sep 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:The hobbit queen Please, this is something awful. We'd call her a womanlette
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
Old houses also tend to be smaller because it saved on materials and a smaller space is much easier to heat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
people were short in cities in the medieval through early modern periods; medieval peasants on farms still ate well but once capitalism started the country folk in Victorian times also became small. it was because none of those people received adequate childhood nutrition. saxons were modern size. armor is also weird bc it's often displayed assembled into a sort of homunculus when actually in real life on a human there would have been gaps at the joints with padding/gambison/etc visible. this compresses the armor and makes it look smaller than it was.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Old houses also tend to be smaller because it saved on materials and a smaller space is much easier to heat. false the material difference between a 60" ground floor and one that's 70" is like 1-2 rigsdaler of stones & clay (of a ~20 rigsdaler total), hardly any difference in wood. they were built low because they didnt have to build tall. plus most of the materials for a house were usually from an old house or ruin, so you only had to pay for the new materials Carthag Tuek has a new favorite as of 23:11 on Sep 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:but compared to the 62.5 inch average it wasnt Well the average might be going up because more of the population have good nutrition and max height rather than the max going up I guess InediblePenguin posted:people were short in cities in the medieval through early modern periods; medieval peasants on farms still ate well but once capitalism started the country folk in Victorian times also became small. it was because none of those people received adequate childhood nutrition. saxons were modern size. armor is also weird bc it's often displayed assembled into a sort of homunculus when actually in real life on a human there would have been gaps at the joints with padding/gambison/etc visible. this compresses the armor and makes it look smaller than it was. I wonder if there was a big class divide in a lot of cultures too, where the nobility where more likely to come from a line of well fed dudes and the poor went through regular famines. Would reinforce ideas of the natural class heirarchy if you were a foot taller than the plebs
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Ever wondered how you poop on a sailing ship? Not on the poop deck, that's for sure (that comes from French word for the stern of the ship, la poupe) Nope, you go to the front of the ship (the head), bring a friend with you (or tell someone), climb over the front rail, drop trou and poop in the sea while holding onto the side of the ship or some rope. There is no toilet paper, but there IS a strategically placed length of rope dragging in the ocean that you can haul up and use the wet end to clean up. Hope you don't have to go in bad weather, because it's a little dangerous even in calm seas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:people were short in cities in the medieval through early modern periods; medieval peasants on farms still ate well but once capitalism started the country folk in Victorian times also became small. it was because none of those people received adequate childhood nutrition. saxons were modern size. armor is also weird bc it's often displayed assembled into a sort of homunculus when actually in real life on a human there would have been gaps at the joints with padding/gambison/etc visible. this compresses the armor and makes it look smaller than it was. I can't find the reference, but I recall reading that much of the armor that you see sitting around in castles was made for display purposes, and was smaller than usual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Azathoth Prime posted:I can't find the reference, but I recall reading that much of the armor that you see sitting around in castles was made for display purposes, and was smaller than usual. Suits of armour were insanely expensive and it seems unlikely that smiths would go to the trouble of making them purely for display. Source: my brother is a blacksmith who specialises in recreating historically accurate armour and weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
Krankenstyle posted:false Maybe for you people that live where trees grow on trees but over here we only had driftwood so unless you were rich enough to import wood you had to build your tiny mudhut hovel as tiny and hovely as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2019 01:36
|
|